Does moral relativism lead to an ethic of live-and-let-live?

Sean Carroll had a debate with Sam Harris about objective morality. However, he has written other pieces about morality, including this one. He argues that moral relativism leads to a tolerant, live-and-let-live, socially libertarian ethic.

Do you agree with that? I'm not so sure. It would surely depend on the outlooks of those negotiating. If they are Taliban, then the resulting society would be very different than if they were not.

I liked the article you linked to, but the conclusion seemed like it got jumped to a bit quickly but otherwise some good thoughts.

The word 'morality' strikes me as a very emotion laden word like 'God'. We use the words and they can mean vastly different things to different people. I guess I prefer the word 'ethics' to 'morality', and that ethics come from evolutionary problem solving. There are ethics that support our collective well being, and ethics that do not. Relative yes, but also existing in a kind of social ecology that can make them appear very objective to us.

Moral relativism is, in principle, entirely indefensible from a moral standpoint.
It likewise strips its proponents of the ability to stake out any defensible position against the most egregious atrocities you could ever imagine.

It is therefore a perfect position for complete philosophical idiots or everyday sociopaths, or a happy mixture of the two.

Captain Obvious said:

Moral relativism is, in principle, entirely indefensible from a moral standpoint.

It likewise strips its proponents of the ability to stake out any defensible position against the most egregious atrocities you could ever imagine.

It is therefore a perfect position for complete philosophical idiots or everyday sociopaths, or a happy mixture of the two.

Click to expand...

Given your statements above you seem to not understand what "moral relativism" is - not surprising since there isn't actually a definition of what it means. It's a term that is used to describe a large spectrum of thought and ideas, some of it is empirically based, some of it is philosophical. But in none of that does it preclude anyone from making a moral judgement call or stating that something is good or bad.

A good starting place to learn about the concepts: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Captain Obvious said:

Moral relativism is, in principle, entirely indefensible from a moral standpoint.
It likewise strips its proponents of the ability to stake out any defensible position against the most egregious atrocities you could ever imagine.

It is therefore a perfect position for complete philosophical idiots or everyday sociopaths, or a happy mixture of the two.

Click to expand...

That explains everything, since god is the first moral relativist.

Humes fork said:

Do you agree with that? I'm not so sure. It would surely depend on the outlooks of those negotiating. If they are Taliban, then the resulting society would be very different than if they were not.

Click to expand...

Ah....but it is not just the Taliban...

In recent conversations with a few christian "normal people" on separate occasions I have been:

• threatened with hell fire for eternity
• accused of being insulting to the culture
• accused of being a terrorist
• accused of being unpatriotic
• even threatened with physical violence

So you see ..... if one day we give any power back to these people we will be just like most of the moslim countries.

Certainly history attests to the fact that Christianity certainly DID NOT practice live-and-let-live.

But it is not just history..... look at the hatred towards gays. What about stem-cell research and abortion clinics?

How can you have any moral relativism with people who hold morals such as below? How can you live-and-let-live with people who would HAVE TO follow this:


Lev 24:


If people who lived up to the COMMANDMENTS of YHWH were given the power to carry out his laws all of us on this forum would HAVE TO BE KILLED:

Deut 13:


Most towns in America would be HAVE TO BE burnt and left desolate

Deut 13:



If anyone thinks they get their morals from the bible then Live-and-Let-Live would be BLASPHEMY and HERECY against YHWH. In fact, the Taliban are TRUE adherents to YHWH's commandments.

Maybe I should clarify a bit. Sean says in a comment to the post (#4) that: "In other words: people use the fiction of natural law to elevate their personal preferences to absolute truths. Once we admit that they are not absolute truths, we are much closer to adopting reasonable live-and-let-live attitudes."

In a way, I find his argument persuasive. As there is no objective morality (I take that for granted), morality is up to us humans, conventions of our society. And once realizing this, adopting live-and-let-live standards for social behavior seems sensible. What I'm looking for is if there are any credible counter-arguments.

On the other hand, it is also clear that our moral sentiments come from our evolutionary past. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have written about it, and it is a shame that the former appears to have been converted to Sam Harris' theory. On the other hand, xenophobia and rape also have evolutionary origins, so to simply claim that something comes from evolution seems inadequate.

I'm not quite sure how all of this fit.

Humes fork said:

Maybe I should clarify a bit. Sean says in a comment to the post (#4) that: "In other words: people use the fiction of natural law to elevate their personal preferences to absolute truths. Once we admit that they are not absolute truths, we are much closer to adopting reasonable live-and-let-live attitudes."

In a way, I find his argument persuasive.

Click to expand...

How do we know that a live and let live attitude is a more reasonable ethic than what a useful fiction of natural or supernatural law delivers? This seems like maybe a kind of confirmation bias.

I'm trying to be a bit of a devil's advocate here. My own position would be something like - there is no shortcut to tolerance. We become more tolerant by the same processes that brought us here - living and evolving as "humanity". Tolerance is complex, it is not a black and white, nor is it always scalable. What we might tolerate on an individual level we would not tolerate at a state level. Tolerance of violence, ignorance, hatred, and fear at an individual level is different than tolerating a nation of that character.

I just don't see though, why someone who abandoned absolute truths couldn't as easily realize that what they wanted was a valid as what anyone else wanted and choose unwisely. I don't see the real argumentative link to a 'live and let live' philosophy except that might be what we hope for.

As there is no objective morality (I take that for granted), morality is up to us humans, conventions of our society. And once realizing this, adopting live-and-let-live standards for social behavior seems sensible. What I'm looking for is if there are any credible counter-arguments.

Click to expand...

I don't always 'get it', but I don't see this as being an argument with an if-then quality to it. It is a hope.

On the other hand, it is also clear that our moral sentiments come from our evolutionary past. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have written about it, and it is a shame that the former appears to have been converted to Sam Harris' theory. On the other hand, xenophobia and rape also have evolutionary origins, so to simply claim that something comes from evolution seems inadequate.

I'm not quite sure how all of this fit.

Click to expand...

We did not evolve as isolated individuals, but as social animals. (This is why I have reservations about some of the core libertarian philosophies). What is good for "only me" has never been the lowest common denominator in our history of social evolution, it has always been some form of "us".

Kopji said:

How do we know that a live and let live attitude is a more reasonable ethic than what a useful fiction of natural or supernatural law delivers? This seems like maybe a kind of confirmation bias.

I'm trying to be a bit of a devil's advocate here.

Click to expand...

This is all well and good. I find Carroll's thesis appealing, but I know the necessity of being especially skeptical of what you'd like to be true. That's partly why I bring it here, in an attempt to overcome confirmation bias.

Kopji said:

I just don't see though, why someone who abandoned absolute truths couldn't as easily realize that what they wanted was a valid as what anyone else wanted and choose unwisely.

Click to expand...

It might depend heavily on what society at large deems acceptable. If you are an atheist but lives in Iran or Afghanistan, you need to hide it, otherwise law enforcement will execute you. If you are caught using recreational drugs in Sweden, law enforcement will be happy to ruin your life. So yes, these issues definitely matter, at least to those affected.

Kopji said:

I don't see the real argumentative link to a 'live and let live' philosophy except that might be what we hope for.

Click to expand...

I think his point is that once we realize that there are no moral truths, we as a society are much more likely to let each individual live his/her own life, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Like the example of homosexuality. If arguing about the social norms of society we wish to have, what argument can be given for punishing homosexuals? Or for executing atheists?

Kopji said:

We did not evolve as isolated individuals, but as social animals. (This is why I have reservations about some of the core libertarian philosophies). What is good for "only me" has never been the lowest common denominator in our history of social evolution, it has always been some form of "us".

Click to expand...

I don't think Carroll is a libertarian. I think the article only touches on the social side, not the economic side. Economics is the area on which liberals and libertarians disagree.

We may have evolved as social animals, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some jackass pick up a gun and tell me how to live because "it's always been some form of 'us'".

The "social" bit of our evolution was voluntary association. That's where that part of the argument breaks down.

I think he's right to an extant, but things won't necessarily work out that way. "Intolerant" ideologies are still entirely possible with a belief in natural law or moral absolutes. I certainly find his view 100x more reasonable/logical than Sam Harris, though.

^ Sorry that should read "without a belief..."

Humes fork said:

This is all well and good. I find Carroll's thesis appealing, but I know the necessity of being especially skeptical of what you'd like to be true. That's partly why I bring it here, in an attempt to overcome confirmation bias.

Click to expand...

I did enjoy the article and found some food for thought in it.

So, an honest bias: I'm skeptical that the word "morality" can be effectively used outside of a religious context. It is a word that divides and isolates, and is not defined very well when detached from religious sectarian works. Morality is a word whose purpose is to divide us and them - the holy from unholy, or maybe less holy.

The term "Moral relativism" itself is seen as an attack on religious belief, or a defeat of religious belief. The phrase "immoral", which seems like the whole point of having the word - would have no real meaning.

Discussing 'ethics' instead of 'morals' seems like a better strategy, if I had a strategy.

I think his point is that once we realize that there are no moral truths, we as a society are much more likely to let each individual live his/her own life, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Like the example of homosexuality. If arguing about the social norms of society we wish to have, what argument can be given for punishing homosexuals? Or for executing atheists?

Click to expand...

That's the part that seems a little too simple, and over-optimistic to me. Tied in with all this is fear of people who are different. Atheists and homosexuals are different. Morality and immorality are ideas that form a part of the framework that the fear lives on. If the framework were removed, yes the fear might be seen for what it is. But the framework is strong and has many defenders.

I don't think Carroll is a libertarian. I think the article only touches on the social side, not the economic side. Economics is the area on which liberals and libertarians disagree.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to come down on libertarian philosophy. I think it contains some valuable ideas, just not maybe all by itself. I agree on the economics thing. Libertarians are far more optimistic than I am about human nature.

Beerina said:

We may have evolved as social animals, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some jackass pick up a gun and tell me how to live because "it's always been some form of 'us'".

The "social" bit of our evolution was voluntary association. That's where that part of the argument breaks down.

Click to expand...

The first thing about the jackasses with guns is a point I don't think anyone is making.

I disagree with the second part. I would assert that there was never a time, ever, that humans survived without social interaction. I could be wrong, and feel free to argue your point, but accepted knowledge seems to indicate that social contact gives a survival ability that does not come from isolation.

...In 1962, Doctors Sally Provence and Rose Lipton, of the Yale Child Research Center, wrote the definitive work on institutionalization. Their study revealed why the deprived infant failed to look to anyone to maximize pleasure and minimize pain- because no one had provided the appropriate sensory stimulation, contingent reinforcement and prompt relief of stress. Infrequent experience with caretakers hampers discrimination and the pleasure of recognition. Since no secure attachment existed, all developmental milestones failed to appear normally.

...In the conclusion of their study, Infants in Institutions, Provence and Lipton found that in the areas of social emotion development, the institutionalized child showed impairment in the following areas:

Reaction to peers
Control of impulse in problem solving
Ability to defer gratification
Capacity to transition
Ability to persist at problem solving
Capacity to recognize an adult who can assist
Ability to generalize learned skills
Construction of original & creative thinking

The effects of sensory deprivation in animals was the subject of numerous clinical studies in the 1940's-1950's. Ashley Montagu, the anthropologist, determined that touch had the utmost important in predicting the later behavior of animals, especially humans. When deprived of the comfort of this stimulation, abnormal behavior patterns were noted.

http://www.adoption-research.org/thepost.htm

Click to expand...

Humes fork said:

Does moral relativism lead to an ethic of live-and-let-live?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Additionally, moral objectivism can perfectly well lead to completely inhumane and immoral actions.

That's because no matter how objective a moral code is to you, it can still bw a completely whacko moral. Like the moral code of, say, Charles Manson.

The individuals who crashed airplanes against the World Trade Center were convinced they were doing the right thing. This was objectively moral to them.

Moral Relativism is a redundancy. Moral Objectivism is an oxymoron.